Calvin Spealman wrote:
> Added a check in test_long.LongTest.test_misc() that long("123\0", 10)
> fails properly and adapted the patch to int_new to long_new. I get
> this weird feeling that if its impossible for the function
> (PyLong_FromString) to know if its being given bad data, having know
> way to know if the string is supposed to continue past the zero-byte,
> then doesn't it make sense to say that the function by design is
> broken?
It makes sense to say the function is being misused in this case - it's
designed to convert *C* strings to PyLong objects, so the assumption
that there are no embedded NULs is a valid one. That said, I think a
better patch for 2.6 would be to provide a separate PyLong_FromPyString
function which did the embedded NULL check (and update abstract.c to use
that instead of its own internal function).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4